Friday, November 16, 2012

Michael Voris' Denigration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass vs. Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Decrees

The above video is Weapons of Mass Destruction, Pt. 1., by Michael Voris.Excerpts follow, with his words in blue.
By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

29:10"In the meantime a New Mass is being engineered that almost totally downplays all Catholic worship in favor of a Protestant-friendly approach. This was what was going on in the Church in Rome."

After making this objectionable statement, Voris then goes on to repeatedly stress that he thinks the New Mass is "valid." Yes, fine; well and good, as far as it goes. But the above is an atrocious indictment of the worship in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass. It bears false witness. Then he states:

30:07-30:43 "We're not talking about the validity. We're talking about: is this authentic Catholic worship? Is this how Catholics worship God? Is this a break from the past, that's so violent, that you can't really say this is authentic Catholic worship, as we have understood it? Has the theology behind the Mass been so manipulated and twisted and deformed, that Catholics going to this Mass miss something of the theology, compared to talking about the traditional Latin Mass: the Tridentine Mass? That's what's at issue: not, 'is it valid or not?'"

This, of course, profoundly contradicts what the Church teaches: which is that the Novus Ordo is in continuity with past worship traditions; not a break from it. It's a development, not a radical corruption. After stating about the Holy Eucharist (Novus Ordo), "it is Jesus," Voris goes on to pontificate:

31:33"Is the sacrament valid? Yes. Has your faith been damaged, on the other hand? Yes. . . . We're talking about, is this authentic Catholic worship; is what's going on behind the scenes a possible detriment to your faith? That's the question! . . . is this a danger? What's going on?"

This is a rather interesting scenario (to put it very mildly). The Catholic worshiper at a Novus Ordo Mass has just gone up to receive Jesus Himself in the Eucharist, yet somehow simultaneously this is not "authentic Catholic worship" and the same person's faith has "been damaged" -- and the entire surrounding (with nefarious "behind the scenes" shenanigans) is a "possible detriment" to his or her faith? This is as convoluted as it is outrageous. If Jesus is truly, substantially present and has been received by us, what in the world is "un-Catholic" about that? What is lacking?

I guess Voris thinks there are things more important than the Lord of the universe physically coming to us and becoming one with us in Holy Communion. Talk about messed-up priorities! He's hung up on particular formulas and wording (that are fully, wholly accepted by Holy Mother Church), and in so doing misses the very essence of the whole thing: just like the Pharisees, about whom Jesus said: "you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith" (Matthew 23:23) and "You blind guides, straining out agnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:24).

34:21"In short, the prayer, the public worship of the New Mass; the question is: is it more Protestant or more Catholic? That is a very, very key question."

Voris then presents dire observations about the decline in Catholic vocations and participation (attendance at Mass, etc.). But this all begs the question, of course, and is a classic, textbook example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"): as if nothing except the New Mass has caused all these problems. Never mind rampant secularism, the sexual revolution, leftist political nonsense, bad catechesis, declining sexual mores of the general populace, increasingly broken homes, the removal of religion and God from public schools, and a host of other anti-traditional cultural trends.

All is traced to a change in liturgy: so Voris thinks (presupposes in his presentation). Many want to make Vatican II the boogie man for every ill in the Church and society. It sort of plays the role for many (of this mindset), that President George W. Bush plays in the politically liberal mind and mentality: the cause of every ill in the history of the universe. He concludes with a statement (entirely presupposing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) that is presented as a self-evident truth that no one could possibly object to:

39:51"The faith has been eviscerated in these forty years, and the decline has coincided with the New Mass. How you pray, is how you live, is how you believe."

50:21"The New Mass stresses the nourishment and the sanctification of the faithful. Old Mass: worship and adoration to the Holy Trinity, the removal of sin. Here?: 'hey, we're all nourished and gettin' along together!' Two entirely different structures here. . . . The language used in the New Mass confuses nearly every aspect of the Mass: the idea of sacrifice; who's actually offering the sacrifice . . . with all of these confusions, the very nature of the faith itself is undermined. . . . the former theology is largely dismissed. . . . The question is, what is it substituted with? When that old theology, the Catholic theology is gone, something else is brought in. What is the something else?"

In high contrast, the apostolic letter of Pope Benedict XVI (Voris cites him many times in his presentation), Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007) stated:

. . . the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that with due respect
and reverence for divine worship it be restored and adapted to the needs
of our age. Prompted by this desire, our Predecessor the Supreme
Pontiff Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church liturgical books
restored and partly renewed, and that throughout the world translated
into many vernacular languages, have been welcomed by the Bishops and by
the priests and faithful. . . .

Art. 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is to be regarded as the
ordinary expression of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Catholic
Church of Latin Rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St Pius V
and published again by Blessed John XXIII as the extraordinary
expression of the law of prayer (lex orandi) and on account of its
venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor. These two expressions
of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church in no way lead to a
division in the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church, for they are
two uses of the one Roman Rite.

. . . it must first be said that the Missal
published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John
Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma
ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale
Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope
John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a
Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not
appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were
“two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

. . . in many
places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal,
but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring
creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard
to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period
with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary
deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in
the faith of the Church.

[in other words, the pope is careful to distinguish corruptions and abuses ("arbitrary
deformations") of the New Mass from the Mass itself, as promulgated by the Church, in a way that Voris does not do at all. For Voris, it is intrinsically corrupt and inauthentic. For Pope Benedict XVI it is as legitimate as the older Tridentine Mass]

. . . the two Forms of the usage of the Roman
Rite can be mutually enriching . . .

The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish
communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great
reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the
spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.. . .

[again, it is disharmony with "liturgical directives" that is a problem, not the New Mass itself]

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the
history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What
earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it
cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It
behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s
faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in
order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to
the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according
to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be
consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

We see nothing here of the stark contrast that Voris draws between the two forms of Mass. In fact, the pope decreed that they are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (extraordinary and ordinary). What Voris separates into wonderful and traditional vs. something that is not "authentic Catholic worship" and "more Protestant" than Catholic: to the extent that the two forms of worship are "two entirely different structures," the Holy Father regards as "two expressions
of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church." The pope refers to the "spiritual richness" and "theological depth" and "holiness" of the New Mass. Voris, on the other hand, thinks (rather Luther-or Calvin-like) that the theology it exhibits is "manipulated and twisted and deformed."

I mentioned above that Voris cited Pope Benedict often during his presentation in this video (and frequently from his many pre-papal writings). But he distorts the pope's beliefs by hyper-selective quotation, and doesn't present its full scope. Dr. Jeff Mirus critiques a very similar attitude and modus operandi among radical Catholic reactionaries:

In recent weeks, several severe critics, opponents and denigrators of
the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite have claimed that they are simply
following the lead of Pope Benedict XVI when he was a cardinal, and they
have cited one or more writings of Joseph Ratzinger in which he
expressed criticisms of certain aspects of the implementation of the new
rite. I want to emphasize that he expressed these concerns in scholarly
work, and that, taken in context, it is always clear that Ratzinger as a
cardinal was not ill-disposed toward the Novus Ordo. Rather, he was
interested in improvements which might be made (no liturgy is perfect)
and, in particular, he was opposed to the free-wheeling manner in which
some ignored the rubrics when saying Mass, . . .

First, it is absolutely critical to note that the mind of the Church or
even of the Pope himself cannot be determined by looking at the writings
of a future pope before he became pope. A cardinal’s election as pope
does not in any way validate his earlier remarks, none of which were
protected in the least by the grace of his later office. . . .

So even if some of Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks seem very negative in
isolation from his entire body of work—or indeed even if it were
possible to argue that his whole outlook on the Novus Ordo was negative
(which was not the case)—this would tell us nothing about the mind of
the Church. No, to learn the mind of the Pope (and therefore something
of the mind of the Church) on such matters as the liturgy, we need to
look to what the Pope has said while in office.

Second, while in office, Pope Benedict XVI has made his approval of the
Novus Ordo clear. He has also made clear that his serious criticisms do
not apply to the rite itself but to the false interpretation of the
Missal of Paul VI as something that requires constant experimentation
and innovation, as if priests are to superimpose their own
improvisations on the official liturgy and, in so doing, frequently
substitute the banal for the sublime. . . .

My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit
your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true
Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the
Ordinary Form. Combat abuses of the Novus Ordo where you can; the Church
will thank you for that. But do not denigrate the rite itself, as if it
is something unworthy or profane, and never imply that the billion
Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their
Faith.

Precisely. We saw the same approach above in his decrees of 2007 regarding the renewed and encouraged use of the Tridentine Mass: concentration on corruptions of a good thing, rather than a thing (the New Mass) itself intrinsically corrupt (as in Voris' erroneous view).

9 comments:

The break of the Latin Rite liturgy is very well documented, and is most obvious in the Liturgy of the Hours.

http://musicasacra.com/2007/09/26/laszlo-dobszays-great-book/

In his other book, Lazlo Dobszay also wrote a chapter attempting to reconcile Pope Benedict's assertion that there is no break, only continuity, between the new and the old liturgy with the facts. He concludes something like this:

It is true juridically and pastorally but not as a matter of content.

If you would like an exchange, I would be happy to oblige. I do not come at these conclusions from ideology, mind, but from independent study.

"The Pope says so, therefore it is true" is not sound argumentation, Dave. It's logically fallacious, and the Pope himself would be the first to tell you that.

I agree that Voris is an idiot and a does more evil than good for the Church, but he needs to be opposed on substantive grounds, not on blind appeals to authority. Popes can and do say stupid things all the time; they're not delphic oracles whose every pronouncement and act is above criticism. To act as if it does is rank, heretical ultramontanism and totally misunderstands the nature of the "grace of office."

I was challenged by one of his defenders to produce evidence that he ran down the Pauline Mass (which this fan denied), so I did so. This is what happens when I am challenged and when people make indefensible claims.

Of course I never heard back from this guy (that goes without saying).

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).